- (1.)At the request and with the consent of both the counsel, the main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is heard by this court and the same is being disposed of.
(2.). This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner in E.A.No.145 of 2002 in E.P.No.32 of 2001 in O.S.No. 7 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, East Godavari District.
(3.)The facts in nutshell are as specified hereunder. The appellant herein, the petitioner in E. A.No.145 of 2002 in E.P.No.32 of 2001 in O.S.No.7 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, is the decreeholder in E.P.No.25 of 2002 in O.S.No.7 of 2002 on the file of the same court. The second respondent is the judgment-debtor in both the execution petitions. The first respondent, the decreeholder in E.P.32 of 2001 in O.S.No.7 of 2000, brought the schedule property for sale in the said E.P. and the appellant filed an application E.A.No.98 of 2002 praying for the relief of rateable distribution. It is stated that the first respondent gave measurements and value in the same proclamation in execution petition for part of the schedule property but the entire schedule property was brought to sale in public auction by the first respondent and the first respondent became the highest bidder in the auction held on 5-7-2002 by colluding with the bidders with a view to cause substantial injury and loss to the appellant herein. The schedule property was not sold for the value prevailing in the market and the first respondent became highest bidder for only Rs. 1,56,000/- which is a very low price. Even as per the Registrar's valuation, the schedule property is worth about Rs.2,16,000/-. The other bidders, who had participated in the auction, have no capacity to purchase the schedule property and thus the auction was conducted in the absence of bona fide bidders and also insufficient number of bidders. It was also stated that there is collusion between the respondents and there is material irregularity in publishing and conducting the auction and the value of the schedule property realized in the auction is grossly inadequate and very low and in view of the same the appellant had sustained substantial injury and loss for satisfaction of the decree obtained by her. In the said circumstances, the appellant, as already referred supra, as a person interested in getting the rateable distribution, had filed the application E.A.No.145 of 2002 in E.P.No.32 of 2001 in O.S.No.7 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram under Or. 21 R.90 Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Code in short) for setting aside the same.